TY - JOUR
T1 - Variation in Family Physicians’ Experiences Across Different Electronic Health Record Platforms
T2 - a Descriptive Study
AU - Hendrix, Nathaniel
AU - Bazemore, Andrew
AU - Holmgren, A. Jay
AU - Rotenstein, Lisa S.
AU - Eden, Aimee R.
AU - Krist, Alex H.
AU - Phillips, Robert L.
N1 - Funding Information:
NH reports no conflicts of interest. AB reports no conflicts of interest. AJH reports no conflicts of interest. LSR receives research support from the American Medical Association and FeelBetter, Inc. ARE reports no conflicts of interest. AHK reports no conflicts of interest. RLP reports no conflicts of interest.
Funding Information:
This study was funded by the United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Cooperative Agreement Grant #90AX0032/01-02. The funders assisted with the development of the survey instrument, but had no role in the planning, conduct, writing, or submission of this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been connected to excessive workload and physician burnout. Little is known about variation in physician experience with different EHRs, however. Objective: To analyze variation in reported usability and satisfaction across EHRs. Design: Internet-based survey available between December 2021 and October 2022 integrated into American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) certification process. Participants: ABFM-certified family physicians who use an EHR with at least 50 total responding physicians. Measurements: Self-reported experience of EHR usability and satisfaction. Key Results: We analyzed the responses of 3358 physicians who used one of nine EHRs. Epic, athenahealth, and Practice Fusion were rated significantly higher across six measures of usability. Overall, between 10 and 30% reported being very satisfied with their EHR, and another 32 to 40% report being somewhat satisfied. Physicians who use athenahealth or Epic were most likely to be very satisfied, while physicians using Allscripts, Cerner, or Greenway were the least likely to be very satisfied. EHR-specific factors were the greatest overall influence on variation in satisfaction: they explained 48% of variation in the probability of being very satisfied with Epic, 46% with eClinical Works, 14% with athenahealth, and 49% with Cerner. Conclusions: Meaningful differences exist in physician-reported usability and overall satisfaction with EHRs, largely explained by EHR-specific factors. User-centric design and implementation, and robust ongoing evaluation are needed to reduce physician burden and ensure excellent experience with EHRs.
AB - Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been connected to excessive workload and physician burnout. Little is known about variation in physician experience with different EHRs, however. Objective: To analyze variation in reported usability and satisfaction across EHRs. Design: Internet-based survey available between December 2021 and October 2022 integrated into American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) certification process. Participants: ABFM-certified family physicians who use an EHR with at least 50 total responding physicians. Measurements: Self-reported experience of EHR usability and satisfaction. Key Results: We analyzed the responses of 3358 physicians who used one of nine EHRs. Epic, athenahealth, and Practice Fusion were rated significantly higher across six measures of usability. Overall, between 10 and 30% reported being very satisfied with their EHR, and another 32 to 40% report being somewhat satisfied. Physicians who use athenahealth or Epic were most likely to be very satisfied, while physicians using Allscripts, Cerner, or Greenway were the least likely to be very satisfied. EHR-specific factors were the greatest overall influence on variation in satisfaction: they explained 48% of variation in the probability of being very satisfied with Epic, 46% with eClinical Works, 14% with athenahealth, and 49% with Cerner. Conclusions: Meaningful differences exist in physician-reported usability and overall satisfaction with EHRs, largely explained by EHR-specific factors. User-centric design and implementation, and robust ongoing evaluation are needed to reduce physician burden and ensure excellent experience with EHRs.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85150647339&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36952084
U2 - 10.1007/s11606-023-08169-5
DO - 10.1007/s11606-023-08169-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 36952084
SN - 0884-8734
JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine
JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine
ER -